Talk:Ancient Egypt
Egypt v Egypt? Is there a reason we've made separate articles for Egypt and "Ancient Egypt"? Everything listed here is just part of the (admittedly long) history of Egypt, so it seems odd that we'd split this in to two articles. --Spencerz (talk) 19:32, February 18, 2017 (UTC) :There are at least six similar articles covering empires that go beyond a single location: Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, British Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Mongol Empire and Roman Empire. I think they are created from the point of view of the empires as an organization instead of a location...--Shabook (talk) 19:44, February 18, 2017 (UTC) ::That's right and I don't think that even geographical location is the main point. If some country has had a clearly distinct ruling we should give it an own article. Our present articles and templates are geared towards geographical location. Just like Shabook told, differentiate the geographical and organizations. I like to link also to Talk:Nazi Germany (Earth-616)#Name from Nazi Party to Nazi Germany . —Mrkermit (talk) 20:55, February 18, 2017 (UTC) :::Then, those six articles I linked in my previous message should be moved to having an "(Earth-616)" designation.--Shabook (talk) 21:29, February 18, 2017 (UTC) ::::You're right even with my displeasure of those overly complicated names. —Mrkermit (talk) 23:47, February 18, 2017 (UTC) :::::If they're kept as the governmental organization, then they shouldn't be in the Locations section of comics either, so that'll need to be fixed as well. And while we're on the subject, what about reality designations for Shi'ar Empire, Kree Empire, Skrull Empire, Badoon Empire, etc.? -- Annabell (talk) 23:59, February 18, 2017 (UTC) ::::::A problematic point is the duality between members of an Empire (if we add designations to countries, I fear people will start adding them in affiliation with memberships template -like it is done sometimes-, while we have citizenships) and citizens. If we create designation for some countries, we have to do it for all of them. To note that for non-616 beings, the handbooks often precise the reality and/or era in the citizenship fields. Also, the mentioned old countries does not correspond to current ones: There is a legacy between countries, but for example, merging Russia and URSS doesn't seems right to me (different citizenship, shared but also new organizations, different borders... Wikipedia's way to handle it seems better to me: Each country has its page, with in its infobox the previous and latter entities (example with the Holy Roman Empire) (or we can do it on each page) For example a page "Russia" with message boxes at each major change, linking to other countries. USSR blabla blabla USSR collapse But it would involve a lot of redundant information for the pre-independent state status era between each page (or the "subpages", let's say "Ukraine", would have message box linking to Russia's section for stuff relevant to the Ukrainian/Russian relation within the USSR. But a policy on how to deal on "nested" pages would be could (for example, I use message boxes linking to events in races/nations' pages, with the example of the Vanir (Gods) where four major wars involving them (the four that I have added to the pages as far). Undoniel (talk) 15:33, February 19, 2017 (UTC) :You're right about those problems so I decided to take discussion about categorization to the forums. I would also stylistically prefer Template:See details or Template:Main over those message boxes because they break the flow of an article and are too conspicuous. —Mrkermit (talk) 11:10, February 20, 2017 (UTC)